Key result
Global strain rate imaging detected increased LV stiffness in HFNEF (SR(IVR) 0.27 vs 0.44 s-1, P=0.028) but was not superior to established TDI analysis (AUC 0.70 vs 0.83).
Why the study?
Does longitudinal two-dimensional strain rate imaging improve the diagnostic accuracy of diastolic dysfunction compared to tissue Doppler imaging in patients with HFNEF?
Population
33 subjects, comprising 21 patients with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFNEF) and 12 controls.
Comparison
Longitudinal two-dimensional strain rate imaging vs Flow and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May aid noninvasive diastolic assessment in HFNEF; leaves open superiority over Doppler pending validation.
Observational (n=33)
Does longitudinal two-dimensional strain rate imaging improve the diagnostic accuracy of diastolic dysfunction compared to tissue Doppler imaging in patients with HFNEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.27% vs 0.44%
p-value: p=0.028
Global strain rate imaging can detect increased LV stiffness in HFNEF but is not superior to established tissue Doppler imaging (E/E') in patients with mild disease.
Kasner et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFNEF) (n=33). Global strain rate imaging vs. Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and controls was evaluated on Global strain rate during isovolumetric relaxation (SR(IVR)) (p=0.028). Global strain rate imaging detected increased LV stiffness in HFNEF (SR(IVR) 0.27 vs 0.44 s-1, P=0.028) but was not superior to established TDI analysis (AUC 0.70 vs 0.83).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: